Get rid of the stars, give us run through stats.
By
Aces_High,
Posted on: 2009-05-22 10:48 in Mission Architect
bump
Hahaha, solid statistical analysis instead of pure whim and rating cartels?
Clearly you are mad.
Also, such stats being available might help alert the devs, without having to read a thousand reports and petitions, to obvious farm arcs. If and only if they follow up those flags with intelligent human investigation of this smaller set, instead of instaban whatever The Computer doesn't like.
However, some degree of player opinion is needed, or it's pointless. It just has to be done in a way so the smallest set of outliers are diminished in importance (not discarded, diminished :P). It's about making things that people like to play, after all.
[ QUOTE ]
Also, such stats being available might help alert the devs, without having to read a thousand reports and petitions, to obvious farm arcs.
[/ QUOTE ]
I bet they do have access to those stats right now. I would not be amazed if they have reports that will note them of extreme xp gain per second and extreme debt aquisition per second between other things.
[ QUOTE ]
However, some degree of player opinion is needed, or it's pointless. It just has to be done in a way so the smallest set of outliers are diminished in importance (not discarded, diminished :P). It's about making things that people like to play, after all.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would say IF that was really desired (player opinion can just be wrong) either an external website for full reviews or an in game text review (no stars) spot would be ideal. Its harder to grief with text than with stars as you actually have to write something different each time. Text reviews also have the potential of remaining anonymous while giving a one spot click where the reader can just say "ignore reviews from this reviewer".
Direct imput player opinion should not drive ratings in any ways, though, other than willingly not complete the arc.
I'd just like to be the courteous voice of dissent here.
I like the star system. While it is indeed open to abuse, it's fast and simple and has worked well for many other websites and critics in the past.
Now that the devs has slowed the most abusive farming and once they delete the badge-hunters' motivations to bork the system, the star rating system should start to actually function correctly. Well, I'm also assuming that they'll actually ban the people who grief others by constantly one-starring story-arcs. Positron did promise that they would do just that.
Besides, do you really believe that the devs who couldn't forsee that people would exploit the MA (Man! If only they'd done a closed beta test of I14! - Oh wait they did, but they ignored what was said to them by hundreds of testers!) would really be able to write a program that will present mission stats in such a way that the average player will be able to decipher?
I believe that the biggest problem people have with the star system isn't with any one-star cartels. I believe that the biggest problem is that people can't handle criticism and competition. When an entire team runs your arc and then one-stars it because they don't like it, it's easier to blame it on "roving bands of one-star terrorists" that it is to simply admit that you don't have any talent for writing.
Regardless I would love to have such information available to myself and have asked the Devs for it before.
[ QUOTE ]
I like the star system. While it is indeed open to abuse, it's fast and simple and has worked well for many other websites and critics in the past.
[/ QUOTE ]
It appears to have worked for many websites. Critics is another topic as they are a select group of people, usually professionals, that "would not grief" with it (some have been known to, though.)
As for websites using it, there have been plenty of articles about the opposite of grieving, companies that pay random people cents to get their products high reviews. Even in Amazon, where you would expect noise to be very low) you can easily read through the actual text reviews and notice who really owed the product and rated it accordingly. However sites like amazon use the ratings in more complex ways, they try to actually compare what you like and what you search with what other users search to find matches of taste and then recommend things you maya actually be interested on. Such a system may be beyond the scope of an MMO who's servers also must run a game real time, though.
[ QUOTE ]
Now that the devs has slowed the most abusive farming and once they delete the badge-hunters' motivations to bork the system, the star rating system should start to actually function correctly.
[/ QUOTE ]
There will always be grudges even if there are no stars. People disliking each other, full SGs grudges, that have and will carry into the MA ratings. People still get rewarded with tickets by ratings and haters will keep attempting to rate down content from players they dislike intentionally so they can "burry it" with the intention of minimizing who plays and grants reviews as an attempt to hinder the author's ticket gain.
Heck, these forums offer no reward yet the star system was removed precisely due to similar grudge wars. Badges and farming will not stop star griefing, the forums themselves are testament to that.
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the biggest problem people have with the star system isn't with any one-star cartels. I believe that the biggest problem is that people can't handle criticism and competition.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would say to a point you are right. The One-star cartels used to be sort of protests, from what I have gathered. But the biggest issue will indeed be people that can't handle criticism, with the addition of those that just must take every single dispute to an extremely personal level. Heck, I dare bet if i had my arc numbers in my sig I would have loads of one stars for supporting the possibility of a PSW nerf in the Dom Buff discussion thread. I have heard of a few posters that have suffered shockwaves of low ratings after posting in controversial threads, regardless what side they take, and it has been guessed it's due to them having their arc in their signature.
As good as theoretically the star system would be, we cant really openly trust everyone to be that honest. Rating arcs should exist as an off-game thing only. Threads that rate them should still go on, would be nice to see an improved rating site (I saw one that is handled via a blog engine, nice but a bit hard to browse through.)
My preference would be recommendation lists, the ability to see all reviews posted on a mission.
<ul type="square">[*] recommendation lists - the ability to have a list that says "I like these missions" - the trick is that everyone is limited to, for example, 10. That is, they can have only ten recommendations at any given time. Essentially, you're allowed to give the eqivalent of a five star rating to ten missions. Don't like a mission? Don't give it a recommended rating. Other people can see how many recommendations a given mission has, or they can look at an individual player's personal recommendation list.[*]See all reviews - for those that actually get them, the ability to see WHY someone rated a review a certian way would certianly be helpful.[/list]
Thoes two are pretty much pulled directly from fanfiction sites that I've visited, and they seem to work really well. Other sites, such as fanfiction.net, also has a simple "favorites" list, which is like a recommendations list without the voting aspect. (And one I frequently use with authors I like.)
I like the recommended list idea a ton. More than any I've seen (or suggested myself.) Very elegant. By having a limited list size, it gives meaning to each recommendation.
Makes Hall of Fame much simpler too, if an arc has X recommendations for over Y period of time it becomes a HoF arc.
I like the recommendation list idea as well.
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if this has been noted before; I dont frequent this forum that much and didnt see anything similar in the first few pages:
With the badge system being changed, the score system in MA seems to be the only messed up feature of the AE. Even without badges its very likely the star griefers will still be around. What I propose is to remove the star system entirely in favor of play through stats.
Make some sort of popularity score based on how many people play and finish the arc combined with total deaths inside the arc, with two divisions: lifetime and within last month. Ticket rewards for the author should be based purely on how many missions are finished but only if the arc is finished.
The idea is to give the browser only two things to see:
<ul type="square">[*]How many people are willing to go through the full thing (this many note the thing is so fun that even if its hard people opt to complete it.)
[*]It lets the player know how many deaths per run are to be expected. Breaking it down by AT would be even cooler (people die in average 2 per run, and blasters die in average 5 per run, tankers dont die at all per run, etc) only displaying the AT you are playing at the moment.[/list]
If I understand right, the goal of the MA is not to farm rewards but to aim to make an arc people enjoy while allowing players to know what they are getting into. These two stats would be way more useful than arbitrary star systems.
The star system could remain as a personal record, not a public average.
[/ QUOTE ]
Griefing would still be easy here. Simply start and quit to give bad ratings.
I say simply don't rate them. Period. List hte most recently played or published ones first. If an arc is popular, it will remain at the top.
Easy, right?
No ratings at all. No griefing at all.
EDIT: As far as Dev Choice...I don't care for it. It's supposed to show us great missions, but not all of them are.
I do like this idea as an add on because as you explained it allows me to see how players are fairing as they run my stories.
I don't think we need to get rid of the star system although I would like to have a way to break that down better for review. okay I have 3 published stories holding at 4 stars but what does that mean EXACTLY? Is my actual rating 3.75? 4.2? I forget exactly what the criteria is for HOF but I think it's 4.5? So how do I know IF I have that extra half a star? Possibly they could add a clickable pull down menu that lets me see exactly how many people gave me 5 stars, 4 stars, etc and exactly what my rating truly is. Doesn't seem like this should be too hard to accomplish. If they have set a standard requiring 3.5 4.5 or whatever obviously they must have a way set up for them to review that and award HOF to those that earn it. Give me that same option so I know exactly how I am doing. 
�We�re always the good guys. In D&D, we�re lawful good. In City of Heroes we�re the heroes. In Grand Theft Auto we pay the prostitutes promptly and never hit them with a bat.� � Leonard
�Those women are prostitutes? You said they were raising money for stem cell research!� � Sheldon
[ QUOTE ]
Griefing would still be easy here. Simply start and quit to give bad ratings.
[/ QUOTE ]
The only way for some one to do that the way I noted is to die a lot before quiting. Some that just starts and quits makes no impact because I would not list who starts at all. Only who finishes and how many deaths have there been there (with an average of death's per completition, even if some of the death never finished)
It would still be easy to go into a mission with a level 1 newbie and die a bunch of times to greif someone.
I like the idea of a reccomendations list, possibly with some ready made check boxes to say why it was recommended (which would be searchable criteria). Things like "Good story" "Challenging combat" or "Innovative System Use".
Another feature that might be good would be to choose a player and get a list of their recommendations.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
[ QUOTE ]
It would still be easy to go into a mission with a level 1 newbie and die a bunch of times to greif someone.
[/ QUOTE ]
Who needs a level 1? I can die in a mission just fine with my 50. If I do though, it doesn't necessarily reflect on the difficulty of the arc. If I choose to solo Malta on Unyielding with an AR blaster, it's my own dumb fault.
[ QUOTE ]
I like the idea of a reccomendations list, possibly with some ready made check boxes to say why it was recommended (which would be searchable criteria). Things like "Good story" "Challenging combat" or "Innovative System Use".
Another feature that might be good would be to choose a player and get a list of their recommendations.
[/ QUOTE ]
These I could totally get behind. As long as recommendations can still be made anonymously, so if someone doesn't want their global out there they still have a way to indicate that they liked your arc.
Eva Destruction AR/Fire/Munitions Blaster
Darkfire Avenger DM/SD/Body Scrapper
Arc ID#161629 Freaks, Geeks, and Men in Black
Arc ID#431270 Until the End of the World
What I'd really like to see is a breakdown of ratings like they have on shopping sites. A few 1 stars and 0 stars easily wreck your rating, but having it out there for all to see how many 5s and 4s you've gotten says a lot. Obviously, it can still be gamed by having a ton of friends 5 star it. In addition to that, you could break it down by percentages of people who completed it. Like, 40% of people who completed this arc rated it 5 stars. 40% rated it 4 stars.
My biggest problem with the OP's suggestion is calculating deaths per run. How on earth can you calculate something with so many thousands of variables including team makeup, individual builds and player's relative skill? One team with lousy builds but playing skill might be able to get through unkilled while a skilled team trying new (and not very good) builds might get smeared.
Personally I think most of the griefing could be cut out by simply not allowing anyone to 1-star an arc until they've finished it. If you start an arc then quit, the lowest you can rate it is 2 stars because you really haven't seen it all yet. Most griefers and starring cartels want to get through things fast, not play arcs they're going to slam anyhow. Someone who goes all the way through is more willing to give an honest answer in my opinion.
Otherwise the current system is ok for me. Anything can be griefed so trying to make a grief-proof system will just eat up Dev time better spent making new content IMHO.
Granted I wouldn't mind being able to see a percentage of teams that have finished versus how many have started. If I want something light I'll pick one with a 100% finish rate or close to it and 10< plays. If I want a challenge I'll grab something with lower finish rate and see what makes it so tough.
"Comics, you're not a Mastermind...you're an Overlord!"
[ QUOTE ]
individual builds and player's relative skill?
[/ QUOTE ]
It is true that many arcs get a very limited play samples, but provided a large enough sample death per run can be a good representation of simple average player skill. Some are great players, some suck. My idea with this is not even to use it as a score just as a measurement of difficulty.
The only true number I care about is how many players finished the arc.
For the time being, though I have realized that 4 is the new 5. I ignore 5 starers and go straight for the 4 starers with loads of reviews.
[ QUOTE ]
Personally I think most of the griefing could be cut out by simply not allowing anyone to 1-star an arc until they've finished it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately (or fortunately,) the devs want players to be able to rate an arc poorly specially if the author made an impossibly hard arc.
There are also some horrendous arcs out there I have not been able to force myself through even if they were easy and the xp/tickets good, they were just horrible.
[ QUOTE ]
Granted I wouldn't mind being able to see a percentage of teams that have finished versus how many have started.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is more exploitative, as another poster noted above. Just start/quit/start/quit as a form of griefing.
I'm not sure if average deaths would be a viable way to tell an arc's difficulty. As a previous poster stated, there are a lot of variables involved in why a character/team might die a lot in a mission, and it might skew the results. My Scrapper, for example, only has trouble with EBs and AVs, but sometimes I let her die because I like using my rez. It would be hard to determine how many deaths were actually because the arc was hard, and what is a person's gameplay strategy. It would also be very dependent on who played the mish.
Perhaps they need to create a way in which player's can rate an arc's difficulty as well as the overall rating. Or, have arcs rated by several categories like "story" and "playability" that would average into something akin to the current 5-star rating that's used.
Current Scrapper Projects: Elec/Invuln, Fire/SR and the eternal MA/DA adventure
Current Defender Projects: Emp/Psy and Storm/Arch
lol Stalker: Nin/Nrg
Or you could log on a 50 with a tray full of rezzes if you wanted to grief an arc.
Besides, people quit arcs for many other legitimate reasons besides dying.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Comicsluvr said:
[ QUOTE ]
Personally I think most of the griefing could be cut out by simply not allowing anyone to 1-star an arc until they've finished it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not viable, for a handful of reasons that've been mentioned a number of times by a lot of people.
Comicsluvr said:
[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise the current system is ok for me.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's broken. It does not accomplish what it's supposed to accomplish. Many folks, myself included, would rather have something that works.
In order to have something that works, both griefing and voting rings need to be curtailed.
I also think there's a lot of underestimation on just how far griefers will go to grief.
---
Re: Death Count
Waaaaaaaay too many variables for this to be of any use. Solo or team? Played on what challenge level? What character level(s)? What AT(s)? Vet(s) or Newblet(s)?
EDIT: To properly identify quote source
The Cape Radio: You're not super until you put on the Cape!
DJ Enigma's Puzzle Factory: Co* Parody Commercials
Hydro, could you please edit your post to mention who you're quoting? Since it's a reply to me, it makes it look like I said those things, and that's not how I feel.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
[ QUOTE ]
Hydro, could you please edit your post to mention who you're quoting? Since it's a reply to me, it makes it look like I said those things, and that's not how I feel.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, sure, sorry. 
The Cape Radio: You're not super until you put on the Cape!
DJ Enigma's Puzzle Factory: Co* Parody Commercials
Why do greifers have to ruin everything?
Thanks!
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Sorry if this has been noted before; I dont frequent this forum that much and didnt see anything similar in the first few pages:
With the badge system being changed, the score system in MA seems to be the only messed up feature of the AE. Even without badges its very likely the star griefers will still be around. What I propose is to remove the star system entirely in favor of play through stats.
Make some sort of popularity score based on how many people play and finish the arc combined with total deaths inside the arc, with two divisions: lifetime and within last month. Ticket rewards for the author should be based purely on how many missions are finished but only if the arc is finished.
The idea is to give the browser only two things to see:
<ul type="square">[*]How many people are willing to go through the full thing (this many note the thing is so fun that even if its hard people opt to complete it.)
[*]It lets the player know how many deaths per run are to be expected. Breaking it down by AT would be even cooler (people die in average 2 per run, and blasters die in average 5 per run, tankers dont die at all per run, etc) only displaying the AT you are playing at the moment.[/list]
If I understand right, the goal of the MA is not to farm rewards but to aim to make an arc people enjoy while allowing players to know what they are getting into. These two stats would be way more useful than arbitrary star systems.
The star system could remain as a personal record, not a public average.